|
|
|
|
Institutional arrangement
Hypothesis : - Institutional sustainability is said to be achieved when prevailing structures and processes have the capacity to continue to perform their functions over the long term. What are the arrangements for the case study?
We can group the case studies as follows:-
Network model – CARDIN is very much a network of independent institutions. “The model chosen for the network is a distributed system with the regional nodes, national nodes, coordinating units and collaborating agencies having clear agreements regarding responsibilities and benefits of participation.” CARDIN Case study. For the model to work there had to be a clear definition of tasks, roles and responsibilities. The role of ICTs was not only the core one of management of disaster information, but also for communication between institutions. Regular contact within the network is only possible through modern communication.
Deniva is also described as a network, although its structure is more of a formal institution co-ordinating membership. It draws its Board of directors from all over the country, however it nevertheless has a traditional Board of directors – i.e. a single frame of reference managing the whole.
Networking environment – The difference between say Deniva and FOOD is that one is a network whereas the other is trying to facilitate networking. FOOD in its action with artisans hoped to create a networking environment. It undertook activities including short-listing women cooperatives and NGOs producing indigenous products, collecting information on products manufactured by them, orienting the short-listed organisations on e-commerce, designing and hosting the e-commerce store, setting up Internet access and related infrastructure, researching online promotion and customer relations strategies, training the e-marketers in online promotion and customer relations, monitoring and evaluating the performance of the e-commerce store as well as e-marketers. Food itself is an NGO with a clear institutional structure, however its use of ICTs is more as a key to networking.
Similarly, MANAGE placed their ICT component within the institutional structure (MACTCS) where self help groups had already been established. Gyandoot also create a networking environment for small institutions (SOOCHAKs - Manager/owner of the kiosk - The person operating the kiosk is a local matriculate operator and is called Soochak. A Soochak is not an employee but an entrepreneur).
These examples show the role of an NGO to co-ordinate between existing community level structures whether communal (civil society) or private.
Non Government Organisation (Information Resource) - The co-ordinating institutions above are in most cases NGOs. Revistazo, ACISAM, Digital Village, are classical NGOs with an independent structure and management. In some cases the organisation was registered specifically for the ICT action – Digital Village and to a certain extent Revistazo. KUMINFO seeks to serve the planning process for natural resources although it is registered as an NGO with a definable organogram. In the other cases, the ICT work is only part of the overall activities of the NGO and is therefore a department or integrated into all sections of the NGO.
Once again we conclude that there is perhaps nothing special about the institutional arrangements required to make an ICT activity successful. The role of the ICTs is, not surprisingly, to enhance communication whether the organisation is part of a formal network or is trying to promote networking. When the institutional framework is a widespread network, such as in CARDIN, the ICT component is essential in maintaining contact between the actors. Where a more singular institution is involved, such as Digital Village, the role of the inter-organisation communication seems less essential in the day to day operation of the institution.
Linkages between institutions and clients are of course important, but the case studies show little evidence that the ICT plays an essential role in communicating to the community. What is obvious from the studies is that it is important to these organisations that the connections to the communities they serve are strong. Digital Village calls the community a stakeholder and there is representation on the Board. ACISAM intends the community to take responsibility for the equipment and produce their own programmes, and therefore involves them in decision making even though they are not an actual part of the NGO institutional management. The community is drawn in using traditional mechanisms for communication – word of mouth, advertising posters, community meetings. The importance of this is discussed in the next section on project processes.
The studies demonstrate the link between the target group, the intended form of sustainability and the institutional arrangement. They seem to indicate that the capacity of the institution has in each case has been enhanced such that “processes and structures will perform over time”.
|
|
Send mail to research@gamos.org with questions or
comments about this web site.
|
